With just over three weeks until the General Election, the release of the first major pre-election opinion poll this week confirmed what was already being reported about this year’s campaign. 

Although the gap between Labour and National has narrowed slightly it remains substantial and is unlikely to be overturned by election day. That means that, whatever else happens, National is likely to be looking at the loss of up to 15 seats, including 14 sitting (mainly list) MPs. Already, polling is showing National set to lose the Auckland Central seat it has held since 2008, and there are whispers that other seats like Whanganui and Wairarapa are poised to fall as well. A reduction in numbers of that size will have significant implications for both the Party’s resourcing in the next Parliament, which will be proportionately reduced, and will also remove the dominance National has had of select committees in the last Parliament, because of its high numbers of MPs. 

Labour, on the other hand, stands to gain up to 16 additional MPs, over and above those being elected to replace Labour MPs who are retiring, which will present its own challenges in the coming Parliament. For many, their election, on the party list, will come as an unexpected surprise to both themselves and the Party itself. Undoubtedly, some of these will subsequently prove not up to the task of being MPs and will need to be hidden away lest they become embarrassments. Others will quickly become frustrated that in a Caucus potentially that large, there will be little opportunity for them to make any significant impact, especially as policymaking and major decisions will continue, as is the case in all governments, to be made by the Cabinet, and within that, the core of Ministers close to the Prime Minister. 

In addition, there will be those from the 2017 intake frustrated that after a term in government, there is no place in the Ministry for them, and they remain just backbenchers. Managing these egos and thwarted ambitions will take some skill and will be a major challenge for the Party’s Whips and officials in the term ahead. On the other hand, Labour will gain significant additional Parliamentary resources because of this windfall and should have no difficulty in ensuring a reliable government majority on all select committees. 

While the Greens will be breathing a sigh of relief that on the basis of this week’s poll, they are across the party vote threshold, they still face some major uncertainties. Historically, the Greens have always done better in opinion polls than on election day itself, so being just over the threshold at this stage means, on the basis of past performance they cannot yet take their re-election as a given. Previously, they have always received a big bump in their support from overseas votes, but with many Zealanders having come home because of Covid19, there may be fewer of these, and in any case, the likelihood is that Labour will be the main beneficiary of them this year. Moreover, even if the Greens are returned, there is no guarantee what role they will play in the next Parliament. It was significant that the during the leaders’ debate this week the Prime Minister was very coy about the prospects of the Greens continuing to play a role in government if Labour wins an outright majority. 

For New Zealand First, the news continues to be bad. Despite a national tour and a number of regional policy announcements the Party’s support has barely shifted above the 2% or thereabouts it has been trapped upon for some time. With both Labour and the Greens making negative noises about New Zealand First’s contribution to government since 2017 it is hard to see things changing significantly for them over the next three weeks or so. Even Shane Jones seems to have thrown in the towel at least as far as winning the Northland seat is concerned. In all these circumstances, the Party’s campaign appeal to be the handbrake on Labour and the Greens is ineffectual for two reasons. Some would regard New Zealand First’s behaviour as a classic case of the tail already going too far in wagging the dog, while others would note that it is difficult to be an effective handbrake on anything if the Party is not in Parliament at all. And lurking in the background behind all of this is the report of the Serious Fraud Office into the operations of the New Zealand First Foundation that was promised before the first election date of September 19, but has yet to see the light of day. 

Meanwhile, it continues to be smooth sailing for ACT. David Seymour is presently the most impressive party leader outside the Prime Minister and his party is well on track to record perhaps its best result ever, and certainly its best for at least 15 years. While he may feel frustrated that his reinvigorated party is unlikely to end up a government partner this time, he should perhaps feel relieved. Three years on the crossbenches, as a vocal Opposition party, will give him the opportunity both to weld his new team together, and also to carve out a significant niche to National’s right which ACT can then credibly claim as their own, shutting out more extremist pretenders like the New Conservatives and Advance New Zealand. 

At this stage of the campaign, therefore, the only outstanding questions surround the Greens. Will they actually get over the threshold, and if they do, will Labour want to partner with them again in government if it does not need to? The rest of the election jigsaw is beginning to look remarkably settled which is why the campaign so far has been so uninspiring.     

 

 

 

The government’s proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development is a typical concoction from Urban Development Minister Phil Twyford. Its ambition that local councils “take a long-term strategic approach to the growth of their cities” is laudable. So too, is the expectation of “joining up transport, housing and infrastructure in a 30-year plan”. It all sounds realistic and achievable – in just the same way as his pre-2017 commitment and subsequent spectacular failure to build 100,000 affordable homes over a 10-year period, under the brand Kiwibuild sounded when first proposed.

The way things are panning out suggest the Urban Development National Policy Statement could well be headed for a similar fate. The professed aim of the policy is to direct councils in major centres like Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, Christchurch and Queenstown to free up planning rules to focus more on “high-quality streets, neighbourhoods and communities.” So far, so good.

The problem arises once the detail starts to become obvious. For example, in the draft discussion document there is a proposal to require councils to “zone all residential and mixed areas within 1.5 km of city centres for high-density development”, with the definition of high-density meaning a minimum of 60 residential units per hectare. The discussion paper also notes that there are two broad overall options to consider – a descriptive approach giving greater scope to local councils, or a more prescriptive government-driven approach. The discussion paper notes ominously that the descriptive approach “may not be as effective at shifting the focus to higher density.”

Further, the draft policy statement allows for building heights of at least 6 storeys “within at least a walkable catchment of the city centre and metropolitan centres as well as existing and planned rapid transit stops”. Given the emphasis on higher density, this provision smacks more of being a requirement than an optional extra.

The discussion document falls into the basic trap of assuming that the topography and general layout of our major population centres is all the same when palpably that is not the case. Spatial development possibilities in largely flat cities like Christchurch or Hamilton are vastly different, from those in more constrained cities like Wellington and one size definitely will not fit all, despite the discussion document’s predilections.

Consequently, in seeking to meet the government’s requirements, councils have been forced to look at possible outcomes that are essentially ludicrous. The Wellington City Council, for example, has interpreted the government’s “at least 6 storeys” and “existing and planned rapid transit stops” requirements apply to long-established outer residential suburbs like Tawa, Linden, Johnsonville, Khandallah, Ngaio and Crofton Downs just because they are served by a commuter rail service. Consequently, it is proposing in the draft spatial plan for Wellington that at least 6 storeys residential buildings will be permitted within a five minute walking catchment from suburban railway stations in those areas, although a ten minute limit will apply in the cases of Johnsonville and Tawa. Yet these are some of Wellington’s more attractive residential suburbs and it seems absurd that their character risks destruction just because they are close to a railway line.

But the bigger question remains. The assumption underpinning the entire Urban Development National Policy Statement process is managing anticipated future population growth. Again, that is a laudable objective, but it needs to be evidence based. The Wellington plan, for example, is predicated on projected population growth of 80,000 people over the next 30 years. Yet population projections prepared by the National Institute of Demographic and Economic Analysis at Waikato University are far less bullish, suggesting a likely population increase of only 10.7% (just over 50,000) across the entire Wellington region by 2031, with just over half that growth occurring within Wellington city, a far cry from the additional 80,000 people the council’s spatial development plan is based on.

What becomes clear is that the issue in Wellington at least, and probably elsewhere as well, is the much more basic one of what is a desirable and sustainable population for the area, and how that is to be housed in the future in the joined up transport and housing infrastructure focusing on the “high-quality streets, neighbourhoods and communities” that Minister Twyford waxed so eloquently about in the discussion document. Much more work needs to be done on what New Zealand’s population will look like, and where it will need to be housed, especially in a post covid19 world, before beginning work on highly specific, and likely prescriptive urban planning strategies.   Rows of multi-storey apartment blocks lining suburban rail corridors are hardly part of that vision.

The sooner the Minister faces up to that reality, and makes it clear he is not encouraging that, the better. Otherwise his vaunted urban development strategy will be properly doomed to follow the path of Kiwibuild before it.

 

 

We are only a few days into the election campaign second time around, but already some things have become clear about the campaigns likely to be waged by the various parties. 

For Labour, the plan is straightforward and basic. As the lead party of the incumbent government, its campaign is based very much around business as usual and making sure nothing goes wrong over the next five weeks until election day. Covid19 will continue to be an influence, both in terms of the government’s day to day management of the lingering and recurring outbreaks, and also the reminder of how well things went during the full-scale lockdowns a little earlier in the year. Not unreasonably, Labour will seek to bask in the reflected glory of that and the Prime Minister’s popularity for as long as possible. 

That will be a gentle and soft image, almost impossible for the National Party to try to campaign against without looking snarly or churlish. Such policy announcements as Labour makes between now and the election will attempt to replicate that wholesome flavour. So, this week we have seen a promise to extend loans to small businesses affected by Covid19 for a further three years (two of which will be interest-free); a new public holiday to mark Matariki, and an increase in the top tax rate for those earning over $180,000. 

Indeed, the tax rate increase underpins Labour’s determination to appear as nice and innocuous as possible. Why else announce a tax policy which in their own words will not affect 98% of taxpayers, and will raise only $550 million a year when the estimated cost of the Covid19-induced recession is likely to be in the range of $140 billion over coming decades? The tax hike will hardly have any impact on Covid19 recession recovery. Instead, it is but the merest of drops in the tax bucket more designed to virtue signal Labour’s concern about the gap between the rich and the poor, without otherwise upsetting the apple cart too much. 

And that looks being Labour’s policy pattern for the rest of the campaign. At a time when people are still scared about Covid19 and are seeking comfort and reassurance, such a softly-softly approach may well be all it will take to secure Labour the outright majority no party has achieved since the advent of MMP. 

National, on the other hand, seems to have opted for a more policy-based campaign. Where they see Labour as deliberately fluffy and vague, National sees itself providing the contrast by promoting real policies to solve real problems.  To that end, there have been big policy announcements this week about a renewed methamphetamine treatment and rehabilitation strategy; a major roading reconstruction programme and the upgrading of Hawkes Bay Hospital. All are substantial, but each has the air about it of being the type of announcement a government already in office might make, rather than a party seeking to win office. 

In contrast to Labour, National is clearly aiming to present itself as the party that understands the process of government, and how to meet critical needs. Hence its emphasis so far on solid, achievable projects and programmes over what it characterises as Labour’s more superficial approach. However, it has all the early signs of simply being the wrong campaign for the country’s current situation. While the needs National is identifying are undoubtedly important and deserving of attention, they miss the boat in terms of where the public is right now. With people still seeming frightened by the Covid19 experience, Labour’s metaphorical offer of a warm cuddle and some soothing words looks more appealing and credible, given the Prime Minister’s approach, than National’s more business-like, no-nonsense back-to-normal approach. 

The Greens’ campaign has been seriously derailed by the Taranaki Green School funding row. Just like 2017 when revelations about then co-leader Metiria Turei’s less than fulsome benefit declarations very nearly tipped the party out of Parliament altogether, the Greens have again been left reeling, this time  as a consequence of current co-leader James Shaw’s decision to fund a private Green School in Taranaki to the tune of $11 million, contrary to both the party’s and it now the appears the government’s policies on support for private schools. 

Not only do the Greens now look once again to be struggling to keep their heads above water, they have been left completely on their own by their major partner in government. Aside from one or two perfunctory niceties uttered by the Prime Minister, Labour has offered little support for the beleaguered Greens as Labour clearly realises the prospect of its being able to govern on its own, without the need for the Greens is growing ever stronger. As in 2017, this campaign for the Greens has now become one of just survival, rather than an occasion to try to increase their Parliamentary strength. 

Meanwhile, New Zealand First’s early 1980s style provincial road trip continues. Whistle stop visits and specific local promises designed to address local concerns seem the order of the day, but the overall appearance is that everyone from the politicians, to the accompanying media and the small groups turning out to meet the visitors as they rush through is just going through the motions. There seems none of the enthusiasm and energy that has characterised previous New Zealand First campaigns. Rather, there looks to be a pervasive sense of grim foreboding and pulling up the drawbridges as Winston Peters’ train-wreck interview with Q&A’s Jack Tame so amply demonstrated. 

That leaves ACT which at this stage looks like being the only small party assured of a return to Parliament. While ACT’s resurgence is a justified tribute to the determination and performance of David Seymour, the question remains to what end. With National unlikely to get the numbers this time to form a government, ACT will be a small Opposition group, with many of its likely half dozen or so new MPs ever mindful that they are only there because of the temporarily-parked votes of currently disgruntled and disillusioned National voters, likely to return home once National gets its act together again. 

Overall, at this early stage, the Prime Minister and ACT’s David Seymour have been the leading performers. Whereas the Prime Minister has succeeded to date by cleverly staying largely above the fray, while sounding unfailingly positive, leaving all the tough questions to her Ministers to answer, Seymour, not Judith Collins, has emerged as her likely foil, far more willing to take her on directly on matters of policy she might otherwise prefer to avoid. 

That having been said, there are just on five weeks of campaigning to go. While some things will not change, with the die looking already solidly cast, there remains the capacity for the coming television debates to throw up surprises, or Covid19 to do more of its dirty work, or other surprises, all of which could influence the final result. So, what has been a pretty boring and pedestrian campaign to date could yet show some life. However, it would not be wise to count on that.    

 

I will be voting “Yes” in the recreational cannabis reform referendum next month, simply because I believe the current law is not working, and that  cannabis should be treated as a health issue, not a legal one, and regulated as such.

This intention is consistent with the comments I made back in 2015 in the foreword to New Zealand’s “National Drug Policy, 2015 to 2020”, that “when legislating to try and reduce harmful behaviour we need to ensure the rules and penalties we implement are both proportionate to the potential for harm and evidence-based.” Based on all the evidence amassed over the years, moving to a regulated market for the production and distribution of cannabis used for recreational purposes fits the above criteria completely. So, it makes sense to do so.

However, all the polls so far suggest that I will be in a minority, with more people likely to favour the status quo, than the move for change. But regardless of whether one supports or opposes cannabis being legally available for recreational use, there seems to be a near universal point of agreement that the current law, dating from 1975, is no longer fit for purpose.

The problem that gives rise to in the likely event of the defeat of the referendum is what happens next. Does the current unsatisfactory status quo remain unchecked, where production and distribution of cannabis stays in the control of criminal gangs, and where the Police (largely) turn a blind eye to its consumption? Or, does the government start to take the outmoded law more seriously and try to enforce it, leading to more people, disproportionately Maori and Pasifika, being apprehended, imprisoned, and unnecessarily scarred for life?

Either outcome would be completely unsatisfactory, but both are completely possible in the event the referendum upholds the status quo. While all the political parties (bar National) have committed to upholding the outcome of the referendum, even though it is non-binding, none has stated what they would do if the referendum fails to pass. Yet, in weighing up the options between reform and the status quo, voters are entitled to know as best they can the implications of voting either for or against. This includes knowing what the politicians intend to do if the referendum does not support a change in the law.

This is especially so, given the general view that the current law has long since ceased to be workable. But to date no political party has committed to moving its emphasis to a more health and evidence-based approach, regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

But it is one of many key areas where voters have not been given full information that could be critical to their decision to support or oppose a change to the law. For example, it has been said on more than one occasion that a regulated cannabis market could produce a windfall of an additional $490 million a year from taxes imposed on recreational cannabis products. But that figure seems simply to have been plucked out of the air. There is no reference in any of the official papers to the potential size of the cannabis market from which the tax figure has been drawn, let alone any estimate of what the tax rate and the retail price to recreational users will be.

Similarly, the proposed new law’s prohibition on the consumption of cannabis in public places sounds good and reassuring to those who might be uneasy about recreational cannabis becoming more available, but there is no information about how that will be enforced, or whether it will simply be ignored, the way the current law is. Yet, if we do not want the Police busily patrolling public parks and beaches trying to sniff out recreational cannabis users, what is the point of even having that restriction in the first place? Many of us might not unreasonably think there are likely to be more pressing priorities for the Police to concentrate upon.

One of the reasons so little information of this type is available to assist voters reach an informed choice (assuming that the policymakers even have the information in the first place) is because the campaign for change has been poorly led and organised at the government end. Normally, a responsible Minister would be charged with overseeing the campaign and making sure all the relevant information was before voters, but this has not been the case in this instance.

Neither the Ministers of Justice nor Health have shown any real interest in the referendum campaign, seemingly leaving it all to a well-intentioned junior MP from a government support party to front. This is as unreasonable as it is unfair. Without in any way casting a reflection upon the MP concerned, the lack of Ministerial involvement sends a clear message that the government is not really all that interested, nor sees the referendum as a priority. It should hardly be surprised if voters draw a similar conclusion.

A cynic might suggest that this is all quite deliberate, that the government is not really all that committed to a change in the cannabis laws, and is just going through the motions, to keep a support party on side. What that ignores, however, is that whatever the outcome of the referendum, the current situation is unsatisfactory and requires attention.

Groups like the Drug Foundation and the Helen Clark Foundation are doing their best to educate and inform the public about the referendum, and to debunk some of the myths and lies being put around by those opposed to reform about what a vote for change will mean. But because of the complete lack of leadership from the centre, they are being left to operate in a vacuum. Over the next few weeks, whether they like it or not, the relevant Ministers need to step-up, and treat the referendum with the seriousness that it deserves, so that voters can make the best decisions.

Otherwise, nothing is going to change, which, given the current state of play, will leave us potentially worse off than we are today – a long way from the compassionate, proportionate, and innovative approach some of us have argued for.